A Predicament Found Not on Ideology But Purpose

I would like to start my article with a quote by the Lebanese American poet, K.Gibran: “Those who utter truth know no more than those who do not.”

Events of the past couple of years in Ethiopia have gradually developed into one of the worst states the republic has known so far. From sectarian acrimony to sectarian violence; from extremist politics to hateful prejudice; from excessive use of force to a nationwide emergency law featuring hundreds of miles of red-zone strips; the situation has become bleaker and gloomier.

And, then the situation plateaued, or so it seemed, with a frighteningly deafening quiet. So quiet that an event as modest as a change of Cabinet by the EPRDF Government – notwithstanding its unprecedented occurrence a year after the earlier Cabinet was made – took the public by shock (as a Trumped-Up scandal would do so in the US-Presidential Campaign). The public response to a conference about challenges of Federal Democracy in Ethiopia – organised by the Fana Broadcasting Corporation on 15 October 2016, during which I was a presenter – was also a little more hyped than I believe it deserved. This was partially due to the deafening post-state of emergency social quiet and partially for lack of a similar candid forum to compare it with.

Elites and politicians never miss an opportunity to analyse social crises from perspectives that, mostly by deliberate fallacy of composition, make the analysis fit into a premise from which the conclusions appear sound and smart. The FBC forum, upon which I presented a very rudimentary perspective of my take on the last 25 years of building an Ethiopian federal democracy, was also one such composition. The deliberate fallacy is not amoral; instead it is a technical imperative. Fitting 25 years of nation building by a popular revolutionary front – the EPRDF – into a 30-minute presentation would be a daunting task to any seasoned political analyst. To an amateur businessman, like me, it bordered on impossibility – were it not for setting the premise to fit with my limitations.

Continuing on the same tone of looking at the crisis with my limited scope, my focus rests on the political spectrum of the businessman, the consumer, the philanthropist and the political activist (this last being currently of five natures at least – one of the EPRDF’s declared manifesto and the other four seemingly dominated by the former, but persistently resurfacing time and again – rent-seeking, neo-liberalism, nationalism and religious fundamentalism). I henceforth also express my view on the current crisis in which our country is at and the possible outcomes on the times ahead, and close my arguments by sharing my opinion on what to expect from the predominantly technocratic new Cabinet of PM Hailemariam Desalegn.

However adversely my premise may be composed, there are a few things that are axiomatic to my analysis of the current crisis. The foremost is that a crisis is a crossroads not a dead end. In the sense that it never behoves upon the journey to assume a U-turn at the crossroad, but rather makes a choice of avenues – albeit the choice may itself inadvertently lead to regression or a precipice.

The second is that democracy, direct or indirect, central or liberal, is the best form of governance that humans have invented and that the only might that is right is that of the people and none other.

The third is that truth is both a social construct – meaning what is believed to be true by society at large – and a positivist proposition – meaning what is not yet refuted by either a preponderance of empirical evidence or by sound argument beyond reasonable doubt against it.

Hence, my assessment of the predicament in which we have found ourselves in as a country and the plausible avenues I foresee within my scope at the crossroads, steps upon these three axiomatic stepping stones. To repeat, I am assuming we are at a crossroads on a journey forward and uphill from an abyss we were at half a century ago (Yes, I believe the ‘60s are the start of Ethiopian Renaissance). I am also assuming that democracy is the cornerstone of good governance for better, sustainable humanity. Equally, what I accept as truth is a double proposition of what is accepted as true by the society I live in and what I deduce to be true from the evidence, and also by reasoning with the intellects of mine and my peers.

Thus, judging from events that transpired since I came of age and which I witnessed first-hand – blissful merriment and gory grief alike – and inferring from readings and conversations about matters remote in time and distance, but as intense in effect by their depth and breadth on mine and the lives of my beloved as if I have experienced them myself; with all my love, my misplaced pride and shameful prejudices – with all these interplays – I have come to the conclusion that the sole proprietor of the current crisis in Ethiopia is the EPRDF, and only the EPRDF. And the political avenues at the crossroads happen to be all in the hands of the EPRDF – both figuratively and literally. The situation reminds me of a fable that I knew in Amharic folklore, but which was more aptly recounted by the then outgoing US Ambassador, Aurelia Brazeal, right after the bloody fallout of the 3rd Parliamentary Election. Asked by a boy – which the Ambassador implied would be the EPRDF – if a bird in his hand is dead or alive, a sage – which I wish the EPRDF would believe to be the people and not itself – replies – “the answer is in your hands”. That leaves us with a critical question of what the bird symbolises. Is it the opposition or is it the people; is it the federal democracy or the universal civil rights?

But, let me first describe the fundamental problems to which only the EPRDF can claim proprietorship.

The foremost is the lack of transparency and internal tolerance that has made the Front manifest at least five ideological natures under a proclaimed doctrine of one and only one – Revolutionary Democracy. It is a Front with a coat of many colours covered by a monochrome vest, so to speak. The four parties under the Front declare that their revolutionary democratic programme is the dominant outlook. Hence, they toil to elevate the tiller class, the farmer, from its current servitude to state and nature to a modern, urbane, industrialised middle class, and lay the foundation of a lasting social democracy. This is supposed to be ensured by the fair distribution of wealth, amid a robust, thriving accumulation of social and state capital.

In practice, nationalism (“chauvinist” or “narrow”, as the EPRDF calls it), religious fundamentalism (Orthodox or Reformist), and rent-seeking or neo-liberalism are all hidden fair game within the four parties. These were there before; and are still here now. Pre-schism ( pre-Tehadiso) politics is no different in composition than Post-schism (post-Tehadiso) politics in the EPRDF. The difference is in its prevalence and intensity. Outlooks wax and wane following the ideological condition of the Front. It wanes when the condition deteriorates and waxes otherwise. The present manifestations of hate-filled prejudice and sectarian violence, no matter how little or mild it may be, shows the degree to which the political Front has undermined its own raison d’etre. The recurrence of these “astray” ideologies demonstrates the innateness of outlook variety in a Front that boasts a membership size of about one-third of the country’s population. Denying the reality and suppressing these natural phenomena in party ranks has pushed ideas to worm their way into the very fabric of the state, using rhetoric and party apparatus to suck on the flesh and soul of the masses.

Ironically, the EPRDF preaches religious tolerance. Hence it should have instead tolerated its members to express their outlook openly – be it liberal or rent-seeking; be it national or religious – as long as it is conducted through democratic manners. EPRDF doctrine is as secular as any other and, as such, it is as fallible as any secular doctrine is likely to be. Preaching religious tolerance makes it more imperative for us to be more tolerant of opposing secular ideologies within our own ranks.

Furthermore, I have two more bones to pick with the EPRDF. One is the fact that it, more often than not, though not in so many words, claims: “NO EPRDF; NO Ethiopia”.

Another is what I perceive to be its lack of willingness to accept the possibility of enjoying or even surviving a position of an opposition in Ethiopian politics, in the very unlikely event it faces defeat in future regional or national elections. In many respects, these sound preposterous to me. But it is also demeaning to the millions of EPRDF veterans, who for decades have bled and toiled in war and peace to lay the foundation of a Federal Democracy. The Republic has now endured for a quarter of a century and empowered citizens of a country that rage no to tyranny in any form whatsoever. These are the glorious achievements of the EPRDF, made to last over the past 25 years. None other than the EPRDF can share the limelight of such glory, save the people of Ethiopia. And, as such, we all deserve to enjoy the fruits of our labour – Front and people alike. Let us not speak of Armageddon anymore, if only to avoid an ominous outcome of a self-fulfilling prophesy.

But the saddest aspect of our predicament as a country today, for me, is not that of an ideology.

Rather, it is one of an organisation too centralised and too vertical, despite its weakness in the nationwide application of its developmental policy instruments. An unprecedented federal state formation that promised adequately decentralised governance has gradually established itself as a more centralised state than at any time in the history of Ethiopia – largely owing to the democratic centralism of the EPRDF.

Empowerment of the people, as promised by the constitution, has failed to materialise. True, the people can voice their lamentations and select from a choice of one – the one and only EPRDF or its designate representation at whatever level of governance, from kebele leaderships to the Executive Council, including State-owned enterprises. The State responds to the lamentations at will; if and when it wills. Even secession, once a “constitutional cornerstone” that the leadership was so proud to declare as a right “that cannot be given or taken”, has now become a taboo reminiscent of monarchical times. Few dare to even think of losing their sovereignty; but one cannot but also wonder what the notion of millennials of sovereignty has afforded to one’s sense and sensibilities. No central government coercion can substantiate a modern youth that demands for “the proof of the pudding in the eating”.

Our country needs to address issues by confronting problems at the grass roots level and engage society at the neighbourhood and family levels. Leaders need to come down from the pedestals on which they pontificate with rhetorical platitudes. They need to share their wisdom, if they have any, by helping people living at kebeles and shopping at roadsides; people whose savings are latched on to by a few and who are expected to peddle or consume the rubbish that is imported using their own hard earned money or foreign currency – money earned by the sweat of Ethiopia’s farmers or the sufferings of their migrant children. A comprehensive oversight on the use and operation of state capital, state finance and foreign trade regimes needs to be put in place.

Veterans, who still secure our borders and the peace we enjoy in our homeland; teachers, who secure the future of our children, and development agents, who secure our environment for generations; civil and military servants everywhere in the country deserve to earn an income that affords them a decent life to their families and their future too. It is immoral for a society to pay less than what it spends on fizzy drinks, beer and cigarettes for the public salary and wages of all its civil servants, police and military personnel combined. I believe that this and similar immoralities occur because the power concentrated on the top deals with matters astray from the popular agenda. This is not populism; this is social prudence. Financial prudence in public management is not only about efficient disbursement on physical goods. It is also about quick, effective and high return on public investment. Investing in public human capital is as much or more important than investing in mega infrastructure networks.

Balancing the tension between the centre and the periphery; choosing between today’s utility needs and investing in our future; sharing resources across the federal republic and strengthening the regions; these are all bones of contention in our Federal Democracy. And no ingenuity can save us from the tension. What we should hope for at most may be building strong democratic institutions that can impose a reasonable oversight on our governance structures. So much oversight as is enough to restrain the tension from breaking out in violence, such as that witnessed recently across our country.

Luckily for Ethiopia, as well as for the Horn in general, the EPRDF is a seasoned political creature that one veteran once described to me as a Dolphin – kindly gregarious, smart to a fault and always in motion, even in sleep. According to this veteran friend of mine, the EPRDF, just like the Dolphin, “when tired and in need of slumber, enjoys its rest in motion, and descends from the surface, falling to the bed with a thump, upon which it awakens, ascends to the surface again and continues its journey with renewed vigour”. And awaken the EPRDF did indeed. With an emergency law scrambled exactly 48 hours before Parliament came to session and a Cabinet restructuring that featured over 40pc non-party member Ministers weeks later.

The new Cabinet will have at least two advantages for our beleaguered Prime Minister. The first is that he too being a technocrat first and a politician second, will have the Cabinet filled with his peers – some of whom he probably knows like friends. The second benefit is much greater than the first. Theoretically, the Cabinet is supposed to be apolitical – at least when compared to the Executive Council of the EPRDF. But practically, Cabinets all over the world, even more so here at our beloved Federal Republic, are tied up with party politics and front-wheel alignments and misalignments (pardon the pun). Having half a dozen or more crucial non-party souls will all but remove the overhang of party spat that may spill over from the EPRDF Executive Council. Not least of all, the new Cabinet is most likely to enjoy the linguistic simplicity that will replace the esotericism that is known to harness open discourse in democratic centralist parties, such as the EPRDF. The PM will focus on the issues of governance. And the rhetoric will be quiet.

What the Prime Minister makes of all these advantages before the need to renew a six-month emergency law poses itself again as a temptation will mostly depend on his ability to lead this dream team of his peers. We should all pray and pledge to help that he succeeds to get us far away from the brink we seem to be stuck at right now.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.